[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0eb717ac-82b1-8a76-58a2-394167e69b28@linaro.org>
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2023 15:11:37 +0200
From: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
To: Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>,
"Peng Fan (OSS)" <peng.fan@....nxp.com>,
"rafael@...nel.org" <rafael@...nel.org>,
"shawnguo@...nel.org" <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
"s.hauer@...gutronix.de" <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>
Cc: "amitk@...nel.org" <amitk@...nel.org>,
"rui.zhang@...el.com" <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
"andrew.smirnov@...il.com" <andrew.smirnov@...il.com>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"kernel@...gutronix.de" <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
"festevam@...il.com" <festevam@...il.com>,
dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@....com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Alice Guo <alice.guo@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] thermal: qoriq_thermal: only enable supported sensors
On 01/06/2023 11:52, Peng Fan wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
>> Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/3] thermal: qoriq_thermal: only enable supported
>> sensors
>>
>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] thermal: qoriq_thermal: only enable supported
>>> sensors
>>>
>>> On 31/05/2023 14:05, Peng Fan wrote:
>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] thermal: qoriq_thermal: only enable
>>>>> supported sensors
>>>>>
>>>>> On 16/05/2023 10:37, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote:
>>>>>> From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are MAX 16 sensors, but not all of them supported. Such as
>>>>>> i.MX8MQ, there are only 3 sensors. Enabling all 16 sensors will
>>>>>> touch reserved bits from i.MX8MQ reference mannual, and TMU will
>>>>>> stuck, temperature will not update anymore.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fixes: 45038e03d633 ("thermal: qoriq: Enable all sensors before
>>>>>> registering them")
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> drivers/thermal/qoriq_thermal.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++----------
>> -
>>>>>> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/thermal/qoriq_thermal.c
>>>>>> b/drivers/thermal/qoriq_thermal.c index
>> b806a0929459..53748c4a5be1
>>>>>> 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/thermal/qoriq_thermal.c
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/thermal/qoriq_thermal.c
>>>>>> @@ -31,7 +31,6 @@
>>>>>> #define TMR_DISABLE 0x0
>>>>>> #define TMR_ME 0x80000000
>>>>>> #define TMR_ALPF 0x0c000000
>>>>>> -#define TMR_MSITE_ALL GENMASK(15, 0)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> #define REGS_TMTMIR 0x008 /* Temperature measurement
>>>>> interval Register */
>>>>>> #define TMTMIR_DEFAULT 0x0000000f
>>>>>> @@ -105,6 +104,11 @@ static int tmu_get_temp(struct
>>>>> thermal_zone_device *tz, int *temp)
>>>>>> * within sensor range. TEMP is an 9 bit value representing
>>>>>> * temperature in KelVin.
>>>>>> */
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + regmap_read(qdata->regmap, REGS_TMR, &val);
>>>>>> + if (!(val & TMR_ME))
>>>>>> + return -EAGAIN;
>>>>>
>>>>> How is this change related to what is described in the changelog?
>>>>
>>>> devm_thermal_zone_of_sensor_register will invoke get temp, since we
>>>> reverted the 45038e03d633 did, we need to check TMR_ME to avoid
>>> return
>>>> invalid temperature.
>>>
>>>
>>> From a higher perspective if the sensor won't be enabled, then the
>>> thermal zone should not be registered, the get_temp won't happen on a
>>> disabled sensor and this test won't be necessary, no ?
>
> After thinking more, I'd prefer current logic.
>
> We rely on devm_thermal_of_zone_register's return value to know
> whether there is a valid zone, then set sites bit, and after collected
> all site bits, we enable the thermal IP.
>
> If move the enabling thermal IP before devm_thermal_of_zone_register,
> We need check dtb thermal zone, to know which zone is valid for current
> thermal IP. This would complicate the design.
>
> So just checking the enabling bit in get temperature would be much
> simpler, and there just a small window before enabling thermal IP.
If the thermal zone is not described, then the thermal zone won't be
created as it fails with -ENODEV and thus get_temp won't be called on a
disabled site, right?
Having test in the get_temp() ops is usually the sign there is something
wrong with the driver initialization.
--
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
Powered by blists - more mailing lists